sustainability

Article

Risk Management Framework for Handling andStorage of Cargo at Major Ports in Malaysia towardsPort Sustainability

Zuritah A. Kadir 1 , Roslina Mohammad 1,*, Norazli Othman 1, Astuty Amrin 1,Mohd Nabil Muhtazaruddin 1 , Siti Hawa Abu-Bakar 2 and Firdaus Muhammad-Sukki 3

1 UTM Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 54100,Malaysia; Zuritah@gmail.com (Z.A.K.); norazli.kl@utm.my (N.O.); astuty@utm.my (A.A.);mohdnabil.kl@utm.my (M.N.M.)

2 Renewable Energy Research Laboratory; Electrical Engineering Section, British Malaysian Institute,Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Gombak 53100, Malaysia; hawa012@gmail.com

3 School of Engineering, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen AB10 7GJ, UK; f.b.muhammad-sukki@rgu.ac.uk* Correspondence: mroslina.kl@utm.my

Received: 2 December 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 9 January 2020�����������������

Abstract: Risk management provides an effective method for ensuring safety and preventing accidentstowards achieving port sustainability. This article describes a study of the implementation of a riskmanagement framework for handling of cargo at ports. To achieve the study’s objectives, data wascollected using a questionnaire and disseminated to port experts at three major ports in Malaysia.The collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) softwareand calculated using risk matrix calculations. Based on the calculations, for port A and port B, 42% ofrisk falls under risk category II and 58% under risk category III. Meanwhile, for Port C, 31% under riskcategory II and 69% under risk category III. Risk reduction measures should be implemented withina defined period of time (12 months). Additional risk control measures were proposed accordingly.The novelty of the study was an improvement of risk management framework. The risk managementframework was proposed with an introduction of risk frequency into risk rating calculation, riskcriteria parameter for risk likelihood and risk severity, new risk matrix dimension and instruments toevaluate the existing control measure factor and new risk categories with five levels which providemore details and sustainable risk assessment method.

Keywords: port sustainability; risk management; safety; accident; transport and logistics

1. Introduction

In Malaysia, seaports are an important component of the maritime and trade industry which haveled to the tremendous growth of ports and shipping activities. Ports and shipping are recognized asvital economic contributors in facilitating Malaysia’s trade via exports, imports and transshipmentsand is hence crucial to the economic prosperity of the country. Due to this, ports have taken on acentral position in industries engaged in international maritime transport, and issues of economicstability and corporate responsibility have acquired great importance in port operations. Ports needto take the necessary steps to ensure that our environment, communities, people and the portsthemselves are positioned for continued success for years to come. The sustainable orientation of portsis firmly anchored upon ports’ business strategies. In order to develop sustainable ports, it is verycrucial for ports to adopt an effective sustainability governing and measurement system. In the pastmajor attention was given towards green and environmental issues, but nowadays the concept ofsustainability has expended to not only be concerned with the environment, but also to concerns about

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516; doi:10.3390/su12020516 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 2 of 20

people and social impact. Under United Nations Sustainability Goal Development Number Nine:“Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure”, it has been reported that efficient transportation services arekey drivers of economic development, and more than 80% of world merchandise trade by volume istransported by sea, making maritime transport a critical enabler of trade and globalization. It wasreported that international maritime freight increased globally by an estimated 3.7% in 2017 and theprojected growth will test the capacity of the existing maritime transport infrastructure to supportincreased freight volumes.

There has been limited attention on sustainability issues in the field of shipping, port and maritimelogistics, commonly known as the maritime transport and logistics industry, which have historicallyreceived less stakeholder attention as compared to the aviation and overland freight sectors. However,the establishment of International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations on ships and ports andcities has drawn and increased the attention of stakeholders in the industry to sustainability issuesacross all the sectors, such as, aviation, land transport, and supply chains [1].

2. Literature Review

Safety and security in ports has been said to be one of the great achievement milestones in portsustainability. According to Kang and Kim [2], some international agencies such as the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) and ports around the world have undertaken initiatives addressingsafety and security issues in the management of port sustainability. One of the main issues raised isaccident prevention, as once an accident has happened, it will not only impact environmental issuessuch as oil spillage, but it will eventually impact the people and economics of the port itself. Thus,in this study, we would like to propose an improvement of the current risk management frameworkand integrate it with the main sustainability impact features which are the environment, economicsand people.

Sislian et al. [3] has highlighted that the most common sustainable development measures focus onenvironmental measures and that future research could be to incorporate triple bottom line sustainableindicators in the network design linear programming model. It is no longer a question of portor environment or society, but port and environment and society aligned with logistics networkoptimization. The authors suggested that future research could integrate some other indicators in thesustainability concept such as safety, operational or trade criteria.

The massive development of the shipping industry has not been at the same pace as thedevelopment of port sustainability in safety management systems [4]. Major accidents at ports are still acommon occurrence. Complex and varied activities are performed in port terminals such as passengertransport, cargo transport, oil and chemicals storage, vehicle storage and transport, ship, lorry andtrain circulation, etc. which all create more risks and hazards. Incidents such as traffic accidents, oilspills, ship collisions, explosions and injuries [5] are among the accidents that occur in ports. Multiplecomplex activities create many risk exposures which then lead to accidents. Unmanageable risks resultin unwanted events such as accidents and near misses to occur.

The Hong Kong Marine Department [6] and the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive [7]rank cargo handling activities as one of the highest potential accident risks in port operations.This scenario also aligns with conditions at major ports in Malaysia. Port Klang, one of the largestand busiest ports in Malaysia, recorded a total of 445 accidents in 2017. From those 445 accidents,88% (376 cases) happened during cargo handling operations, 1% (five cases) were marine accidentcases and 10% (44 cases) were miscellaneous cases such as accidents at administration buildings andduring maintenance activities. Many accidents happen during the handling and storage of the cargoin ports, especially if the activity involves manual handling as the employees are directly exposed tohazards and risks [8]. The complexity and variety of activities performed in port terminals creates morerisks and hazards. These risks and hazards affect people, including crews, passengers, port users andport workers, the environment and property such as ships and port facilities [4]. If not managed andcontrolled, this will create unsafe acts and conditions [5] and may eventually lead to major accidents,

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 3 of 20

including fatalities. These activities each have risks that need to be assessed and evaluated to placeappropriate control measures to prevent accidents.

Previous studies have developed and highlighted different risk assessment models by utilizingmany risk assessment techniques to solve specific problems pertaining to the risk of handling cargo atterminal operations [5,9–15]. However, no common risk assessment framework can be implementedfor all types of risks. This study will introduce some common frameworks for identifying all typesof risks in port operations and activities. There are six main pieces of legislation that relate to riskmanagement frameworks in ports, as listed below. These six main sets of legislations all emphasizerisk management implementation:

(1) Safety of Life at Sea 1974: International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) [16](2) Merchant Shipping Ordinance [17](3) International Maritime Organization [18](4) Malaysia Port by Law [19](5) Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1994 (OSHA) [20](6) Factory Machinery Act, 1967 (FMA) [21]

Based on the above, there are two further regulations that establish risk assessment guidelines tocomplement the legislation. Both regulations have the same objectives in providing a structured andsystematic risk assessment methodology to be implemented by the industry:

(1) International Maritime Organization-Formal Safety Assessment, 2002 (FSA) [22](2) Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA)-Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and

Risk Control (HIRARC), 2008 [23]

Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) was established by the International Maritime Organization(IMO) in 2002. The main purpose of the guidelines was to enhance maritime safety, including protectionof life, health, the marine environment and property, by using risk analysis and cost benefit assessment.Additionally, it suggests methods to develop new regulations for maritime safety, protection ofthe marine environment by comparing the current and any enhanced or new regulations to findbalance between technical and operational issues such as human factor, maritime safety environmentalpreservation and cost.

FSA guidelines are available for the port, maritime and shipping industry [11]. A literature reviewshows numerous maritime related risks studies using FSA [24,25]. It also acts as a decision-makingtool. It helps organisations handle any decision-making process in implementing any new regulationsenforced in terms of operations and cost. Wang et al. [26] explored the FSA for container ships byusing fault tree analysis (FTA) for hazard identification and risk evaluation. It was proven that thetechniques were efficient and easy to be implemented. As shown in Table 1, formal safety assessmentguidelines entail a systematic risk assessment process [27,28], which starts with hazard identification,risk analysis, risk control options, cost-benefit assessment and recommendation for decision making.Many elements of the FSA are implemented in other industries with the main users being the maritimeand shipping industry.

Recently, there has been tremendous efforts in adapting FSA for ports and terminals. Pallis [11]proposed Port Risk Assessment (PRA), a risk assessment methodology with reference to the FSA.The main purpose of the research was to implement formal safety assessment frameworks at ports.The proposed methodology examined accidents related to human and environmental risk factors byinterviewing port experts to determine the risk control options. All the proposed risk control optionsinvolved cost but at the same time able to reduce risks.

In Malaysia, there is no specific risk assessment guidelines and frameworks for the port industry.The only applicable risk assessment guidelines available are the Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment,and Risk Control (HIRARC) Guidelines, 2008 [21] which provides general guidelines for any industryin implementing risk assessment systems. Even though the guideline is considered sufficient, as a

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 4 of 20

proactive measure, it is essential for specific risk assessment frameworks and guidelines for ports to beestablished as a step towards preventing accidents and managing safety at ports.

Table 1. Details of Formal Safety Assessment Steps [11].

Step Step Details Step Purpose Step Techniques

1 Hazard identification Identify all critical hazards Brainstorming, accident analysis,Interview, task analysis

2 Risk analysis Detailed investigation of theidentified risk in step 1.

Qualitative or quantitative riskanalysis

3 Risk control options Propose effective and practicalRisk control options Structured review techniques

4 Cost-Benefits assessmentDetermining the cost efficiencyby Cost/benefit assessment of

port risk control measuresCost benefit analysis

5 Decision Making Define recommendations oraction plan for improvement. Reports, proposal

The main purpose of the 2008 Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Control (HIRARC)guidelines, is to provide a systematic and structure risk assessment methodology which can be appliedand implemented by all organisations in Malaysia in effort to manage their employee’s safety andhealth at work. This is also a proactive action in managing safety and health concerns in Malaysia.The outcome of this methodology enables employers to introduce control measures and monitor theadequacy of these control measures from time to time. The core of this guideline is to implementcontrol measures to manage risk. If the risk is found to be significant or high, efforts must be made tolower or minimize the risk.

In terms of application, both legislations were established with the same objective in providingstructured and systematic risk assessment methodologies for implementation. A comparison betweenthe FSA and HIRARC is provided in Table 2 below. As tabulated, both legislations are focused oncompliance and control in line with existing international and national laws and regulations. The FSAwas designed specifically for maritime safety risk whilst the HIRARC is general in its scope andapplicable to all industries in Malaysia. Based on Table 2, risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluationand risk control are the main components of risk management and reflected in most legislation.

Table 2. Comparison between Formal Safety Assessment and Hazard Identification, Risk Assessmentand Risk Control.

Formal Safety Assessment, 2002Hazard Identification, Risk

Assessment and Risk Control(HIRARC), 2008

Main Objectives Compliance and Control Compliance and Control

Scope Focused on maritime safety risk. General and applicable to allindustries in Malaysia.

Main components/steps

1. Hazard identification2. Risk analysis

3. Risk control options4. Cost-benefits assessment

5. Recommendations fordecision-making

1. Classify work activities2. Hazard identification

3. Analyse and estimate risk4. Selecting control

5. Implement6. Review and monitoring

In terms of risk assessment frameworks, the comparison is as per Tables 3 and 4. Differences werefound in the risk assessment process as FSA used expert review and brainstorming and did not specifythe process of risk identification. Meanwhile, HIRARC employed risk identification methodology for

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 5 of 20

three categories of hazard (Health, Safety, Environment) which give additional value to the standards.Other significant differences were also found in FSA. Its dimension of consequence is elaborated similarto PHSEMS which carries an identical implication for the decision-making process. Both FSA andHIRARC are using qualitative risk matrix assessment.

Table 3. Comparison of Legislation based on main components.

Legislation Establishingthe Context

HazardIdentification

RiskAnalysis

RiskEvaluation

RiskControl

AdditionalFeatures

Formal SafetyAssessment (FSA),

2002- Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cost-benefitsassessment

Recommendationsfor decision-making

HazardIdentification, Risk

Assessment and RiskControl (2008)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Classify workactivities

Monitoring andReview

Table 4. Risk assessment processes for each Legislations.

Legislations Identification ofRisk

Risk AssessmentTechniques Risk Evaluation Risk Control

Formal SafetyAssessment, 2002

Expert review andbrainstorming

Qualitative-Risk matrix(Risk = Likelihood X

Severity)The consequence

expressed details intoPeople, Asset,

Environment and Image.Likelihood also more

details

Based risk rating.Risk level (High,Low, Medium)

Developed riskcontrol option

HazardIdentification,

Risk Assessmentand Risk Control(HIRARC), 2008

Three categories ofhazard (Health,

Safety,Environment).Provide risk

identificationmethodology.

Qualitative/Semiquantitative-Risk matrix

(Risk = Likelihood XSeverity)

Simple likelihood andSeverity margin

Based risk rating.Risk level (High,Low, Medium)

Hierarchy ofcontrol

The Malaysian HIRARC guideline as shown in Figure 1 provides a guideline for simple operationactivities. The existing HIRARC framework using a risk assessment table or risk matrix has been widelyused in many studies in other applications such as hotel services, hydroelectric power generationplants, schools or education, crane operations, road accidents and manufacturing. The main steps ofthe HIRARC method are mainly used by risk management research. The HIRARC process is basedon the four steps: (1) risk classification, (2) risk identification, (3) risk analysis and estimation and (4)risk control. The guideline has a framework that uses a qualitative risk matrix assessment, a simplecalculation of risk rating and categorizes risks into three levels, not considering the existing controlmeasure. These limitations lead to a challenging implementation of risk management in the Malaysianport industry. The existing risk management framework used only qualitative risk matrix assessment.Thus, this study proposes a risk assessment framework with a new risk calculation. A new riskcalculation method with new improved risk parameter variables was also introduced. In addition,there is a gap in evaluating the existing control measure in the existing risk management. This studyintroduces an instrument to evaluate the existing control measure factor to the risk value calculationat risk evaluation stage. The main issues are found in classic risk matrix analysis as it is typicallystructured based on one dimension of consequence and one dimension of probability.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 6 of 20

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 6 of 19

In reality, most risks produce more than one consequence. This reflects on the definition of risk

itself as a combination of the likelihood of an occurrence of a hazardous event within a specified

period or under specified circumstances and the severity of injury or damage to the health of people,

property, environment or any combination of these caused by the event. Thus, it is not relevant to

interpret the consequence of risk from only one consequence. This can increase uncertainty and bias

as it affects the analysis into likelihood and severity. This also does not reflect the sustainability which

shows the gap between the current risk management frameworks in sustainability aspect.

Figure 1. Gap in current risk assessment framework in Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and

Risk Control guidelines.

3. Methodology

In this study, to assess the risk factors of handling and storage of cargo at ports, the HIRARC

method was applied as the main analysis tool, however improvement of the framework has been

made to suit the port suitability. The Malaysian HIRARC 2008 guideline provides a guideline for

simple operation activities. The guideline has a framework that uses a qualitative risk matrix

assessment, a simple calculation of risk rating and categories risks into three levels, not considering

the existing control measures. These limitations lead to a challenging implementation of risk

management in the Malaysian port industry. Therefore, this study aims to propose an improvement

to the risk management framework for the handling and the storage of cargo at ports in Malaysia to

prevent and control accidents and to implement effective safety and health management. An

improvement of risk management framework was developed with identification of risk factors in

handling and storage of cargo in ports. Besides that, an enhancement was proposed with an

introduction of risk frequency into risk rating calculation, risk criteria parameter for risk likelihood

and risk severity, new risk matrix dimension and instruments to evaluate the existing control

measure factor and new risk categories with five levels as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Gap in current risk assessment framework in Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment andRisk Control guidelines.

In reality, most risks produce more than one consequence. This reflects on the definition of riskitself as a combination of the likelihood of an occurrence of a hazardous event within a specified periodor under specified circumstances and the severity of injury or damage to the health of people, property,environment or any combination of these caused by the event. Thus, it is not relevant to interpret theconsequence of risk from only one consequence. This can increase uncertainty and bias as it affects theanalysis into likelihood and severity. This also does not reflect the sustainability which shows the gapbetween the current risk management frameworks in sustainability aspect.

3. Methodology

In this study, to assess the risk factors of handling and storage of cargo at ports, the HIRARCmethod was applied as the main analysis tool, however improvement of the framework has been madeto suit the port suitability. The Malaysian HIRARC 2008 guideline provides a guideline for simpleoperation activities. The guideline has a framework that uses a qualitative risk matrix assessment,a simple calculation of risk rating and categories risks into three levels, not considering the existingcontrol measures. These limitations lead to a challenging implementation of risk management inthe Malaysian port industry. Therefore, this study aims to propose an improvement to the riskmanagement framework for the handling and the storage of cargo at ports in Malaysia to prevent andcontrol accidents and to implement effective safety and health management. An improvement of riskmanagement framework was developed with identification of risk factors in handling and storage ofcargo in ports. Besides that, an enhancement was proposed with an introduction of risk frequency intorisk rating calculation, risk criteria parameter for risk likelihood and risk severity, new risk matrixdimension and instruments to evaluate the existing control measure factor and new risk categorieswith five levels as shown in Figure 2.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 7 of 20Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 7 of 19

Figure 2. Risk Management Framework with enhancement [29].

3.1. Classification of Work Activities

Port experts and port representatives provided a briefing on cargo handling activities at port

operations. In this operation, the cargo is handled based on their type. Container operations involve

loading and unloading of containers from vessels onto the prime mover or haulage using a quay

crane. The conventional operation is divided into two categories which are bulk operation and roll

on-roll off (RO-RO) operation. The RO-RO operation involves wheeled cargo, e.g., cars, trucks,

construction vehicles that can drive on and off the ship on their own or on special trailers. Bulk

operations are divided into three categories which are break bulk, liquid bulk and dry bulk. Liquid

bulk involves liquid substances carried in bulk in ships’ tanks, including oil, oil derivatives and

chemical cargoes such as oil and gas. Several ports in Malaysia solely provide as liquid bulk terminals

which handle both non-dangerous goods such as palm-oil and dangerous goods such as liquefied

natural gas (LNG) and petroleum. There are also dangerous goods packed in containers as well as

tankers and loose cargo which pose risks such being explosive, corrosive or present a fire and/or

environmental risk. Dry bulk involves solid substances such as iron ore, coal and grain. It is handled

by luffing cranes or winch cranes. Breakbulk or general cargo refers to any loose materials or items

that must be loaded individually, such as steel plate or coils, packaged lumber and heavy machinery.

3.2. Risk Identification

To identify the critical risk factors of handling cargo activities in ports, a combination of

literature reviews and brainstorming with port experts were conducted. The same method was

practiced by Mokhtari et al. [30]. Brainstorming with port experts was conducted to ensure that the

factors identified by literature but not relevant to actual handling activities at port terminal

operations are not considered. A total of 57 risk factors were identified, as listed in Appendix B.

3.3. Risk Analysis and Estimation

The following describes the risk assessment criteria in this study. The risk assessment criteria

were validated by port experts. The likelihood of occurrence was defined by a scale from 1 (very

unlikely) to 5 (certain) as per Table 5. The likelihood is assessed without considering the presence of

Figure 2. Risk Management Framework with enhancement [29].

3.1. Classification of Work Activities

Port experts and port representatives provided a briefing on cargo handling activities at portoperations. In this operation, the cargo is handled based on their type. Container operations involveloading and unloading of containers from vessels onto the prime mover or haulage using a quay crane.The conventional operation is divided into two categories which are bulk operation and roll on-rolloff (RO-RO) operation. The RO-RO operation involves wheeled cargo, e.g., cars, trucks, constructionvehicles that can drive on and off the ship on their own or on special trailers. Bulk operations aredivided into three categories which are break bulk, liquid bulk and dry bulk. Liquid bulk involvesliquid substances carried in bulk in ships’ tanks, including oil, oil derivatives and chemical cargoessuch as oil and gas. Several ports in Malaysia solely provide as liquid bulk terminals which handleboth non-dangerous goods such as palm-oil and dangerous goods such as liquefied natural gas (LNG)and petroleum. There are also dangerous goods packed in containers as well as tankers and loosecargo which pose risks such being explosive, corrosive or present a fire and/or environmental risk.Dry bulk involves solid substances such as iron ore, coal and grain. It is handled by luffing cranes orwinch cranes. Breakbulk or general cargo refers to any loose materials or items that must be loadedindividually, such as steel plate or coils, packaged lumber and heavy machinery.

3.2. Risk Identification

To identify the critical risk factors of handling cargo activities in ports, a combination of literaturereviews and brainstorming with port experts were conducted. The same method was practiced byMokhtari et al. [30]. Brainstorming with port experts was conducted to ensure that the factors identifiedby literature but not relevant to actual handling activities at port terminal operations are not considered.A total of 57 risk factors were identified, as listed in Appendix B.

3.3. Risk Analysis and Estimation

The following describes the risk assessment criteria in this study. The risk assessment criteria werevalidated by port experts. The likelihood of occurrence was defined by a scale from 1 (very unlikely)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 8 of 20

to 5 (certain) as per Table 5. The likelihood is assessed without considering the presence of controlmeasures. In order to reduce uncertainty and bias, the parameter of risk likelihood was explainedbased on percentage bases and number of occurrences.

Table 5. Likelihood of occurrence (L). Adapted from Formal Safety Assessment with Enhancement [29].

Likelihood ofOccurrence (L) Percentage Basis Number of Occurrences

1 Very unlikely The probability to happen isextremely small (<1%) No cases known

2 Unlikely Could happen, however very rare(1 to 9%) One case within 5 to 10 years

3 Likely Chances to happen is relativelyhigh (10 to 59%) One case within 1 to 5 years

4 Most likely Can happen frequently (60 to 94%) One case within 6 months to1 year

5 Certain Expected to happen (95 to 100%) Once case in less than 6 months

The severity of the occurrence was defined by a scale of 1 to 5 as described in Table 6. In orderto reduce bias and uncertainty, an explanation of variables is provided. In order to integrate theaspect of sustainability, the consequence was made based on judgement on the impact to people, asset,environment and reputation of the organization.

Table 6. Severity of Harm (S). Adapted from Formal Safety Assessment with Enhancement [29].

Level Risk Level

1 Negligible2 Minor3 Major4 Critical5 Catastrophe

Note: Details of List Severity are given in Appendix A.

The frequency is based on the activity conducted. In this study the frequency was calculated anddefined based on a scale of 1 to 5 as described in Table 7.

Table 7. Frequency of Activity (F) [29].

Level Frequency Description

1 Yearly 1 to 10 times in a year2 Monthly 1 to 3 times in a month3 Weekly 1 to 3 times in a week4 Daily 1 to 5 times in a day5 Hourly Once or more in an hour, or >5 times in a day

In order to analyse the risk, the risk likelihood, risk frequency and risk severity was calculatedaccording to the below calculation and the results placed in Table 8 below:

Risk Value= L × S × F (1)

where the variables are Likelihood of Occurrence (L), Severity of Harm (S; the value of S shall be takenas the highest value of People, Asset, Environment, and Image) and Frequency of Activity (F).

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 9 of 20

Table 8. Risk Level and Action to be Taken [29].

Risk Rating Risk Category Risk Level Action and Time Scale

1–9 I Trivial No action required

10–26 II AcceptableNo additional controls required. Monitoring

required in ensuring existing controlsare maintained.

27–47 III ModerateEfforts may be made to reduce the risk. Risk

reduction measures should be implemented within adefined period of time (12 months).

48–64 IV SignificantEfforts shall be made to reduce the risk. Risk

reduction measures should be implemented within adefined period of time (6 months).

>=65 V Unacceptable

Work should not be started until the risk has beenreduced. Considerable resources shall be allocated toreduce the risk. If the risk hinders work in progress,

urgent action (within 7 working days, min, andadmin control) shall be taken.

3.4. Risk Control

Based on the risk calculation, the modified risk matrix was categorized into five categoriesaccording to the risk rating. This was made based on the basis of the risk being reduced to As Low asReasonable Practice (ALARP). The recommended actions and time scale for corrective action plans(new risk control) are detailed in Table 5. Once the risk was evaluated and categorized, the risk controlwas proposed based on the hierarchy of control. In this study, the risk control is proposed based on thehierarchy of control adapted from the HIRARC guideline.

3.5. Data Collection

In order to conduct the risk assessment, the identified risk factors and risk assessment criteria wererendered into the form of a questionnaire. This allowed the data collection process to be simplified andstandardized. There were two parts of questionnaires constructed for this study. The identified 57risk factors by port experts as listed in Table 5. The risk frequency, risk likelihood, risk severity wasconverted into a five-level Likert scale.

The questionnaire was distributed to three major ports located in the Malaysia. The three portsare multipurpose ports and the busiest ports in Malaysia which have various operations of portservices involving container operations, liquid bulk operations, dry bulk operation, ferry operations,vehicle transit centers, roll on-roll out operation, marine services and dangerous goods storageoperations. Port experts including supervisors and higher level management who are involved interminal operations were invited to complete the questionnaire. To increase the response rate, thequestionnaire was completed during interviews conducted by the authors. A total of 191 completedquestionnaires were collected out of the 300 questionnaires distributed. The same method was appliedby Yang et al. [12] and Shang and Tseng [9].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Development of Risk Management Framework

Pallis [11] has stated that there are no specific standardized risk management frameworks.In Malaysia, there is still uncertainty regarding the availability of standardized frameworks capable ofserving all types of systems and risks. Thus, risk management frameworks that followed the HIRARCframework were developed based on a few considerations. The first consideration is based on legalrequirements. The HIRARC model follows local regulations and guidelines under Occupational Safety

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 10 of 20

and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)—HIRARC 2008 [22]. Second, based on the same theme as the firstconsideration, since the local guidelines follow the HIRARC model, it would be easier for ports inMalaysia to adapt the model. This will increase understanding of the risk management process andreduce uncertainty and bias. The third consideration is based on the risk assessment techniques inthe HIRARC model. The risk matrix is a structured technique, easily explained and understood,making it simple to implement and adopt. The risk calculator and the semi-quantitative risk ratingmatrix are identified as the most preferred methods for risk analysis. It is an advantage to apply thistechnique in a complex scenario. The model can help risk managers develop highly efficient riskmanagement strategies across multiple risk levels in accordance with various risk factors, helpinglessen loss occurrence rates and thereby reducing corporate financial losses. The risk matrix modelis also employed by many risk management frameworks. The fourth consideration is based on dataavailability. Previous studies have shown that the main focus of risk assessment research is theintegration of both methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) to generate solutions. Previous studiesalso suggested that risk assessment be measured by utilizing historical accident data. The data can beanalyzed qualitatively and quantitatively by using various statistical methods. In order to performthis, it requires large historical accident data which are not readily available even from the Departmentof Occupational Safety and Health, Malaysia online database. Due to limitation of large historicalaccidents data in Malaysia availability, the research shall be relied on experts’ knowledge. Compared tothe qualitative and quantitative methods, the semi quantitative risk analysis seems to be more realisticas per the HIRARC theoretical framework discussed earlier.

Even though the frameworks follow the HIRARC model, some enhancement criteria from otherstandards, legislations and guidelines were introduced in developing the frameworks. Enhancementcriteria that have been adapted are as below:

(1) Identification of risk factors in handling and storage of cargo in ports based on literature reviewand validated by experts.

(2) Risk criteria parameter for risk likelihood and risk severity was adopted from Formal SafetyAssessment (FSA) guidelines with modification to fit Malaysia’s standards and requirements.

(3) An improvement to the risk management framework was developed with identified risk factorsin handling and storage of cargo in ports based on the literature review and validation by experts.The improvement proposed were the introduction of risk frequency into risk rating calculation,improved risk criteria parameter for risk likelihood and risk severity, new risk matrix dimension,an instrument to evaluate of existing control measure factor and five level of risk categories.

4.2. Risk Analysis and Estimation

The mean of frequency, likelihood and severity of the risk factors associated with handling andstorage of cargo at port terminals tasks in the questionnaires are shown in Appendix C. In order toanalyse the risk, the mean value of risk frequency, risk likelihood and risk severity was multiplied toobtain the risk value. The results of the study were categorized into risk level accordingly as tabulatedin Table 9.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 11 of 20

Table 9. Risk Analysis and Estimation.

Risk Category Port A Port B Port C Action and TimeScale

I (Trivial) Nil Nil Nil No action required

II (Acceptable)

R8, R11, R12, R13,R14, R15, R16, R23,R24, R25, R27, R28,R32, R34, R36, R42,R46, R47, R48, R50,R52, R54, R55, R56

R8, R10, R11, R12, R13,R14, R16, R17, R22,R23, R24, R25, R27,R28, R29, R30, R31,R32, R36, R37, R38,R39, R42, R43, R44,R46, R47, R49, R50,R52, R54, R55, R56

R8, R9, R10, R11, R12,R13, R14, R15, R16,R22, R23, R24, R25,R27, R28, R30, R32,R36, R37, R38, R39,R41, R42, R43, R44,R46, R47, R48, R49,R50, R52, R53, R54,

R55, R56

No additional controlsrequired. Monitoring

required ensuringexisting controls are

maintained.

III (Moderate)

R1, R2, R3, R4,R5,R6, R7, R9, R10,

R17, R18, R19, R20,R21,R22, R26, R29,R30, R31, R33, R35,R37, R38, R39, R40,R41, R43, R44, R45,R49, R51, R53, R57

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,R7, R9, R15, R18, R19,

R20, R21, R26, R33,R34, R35, R40, R41,

R45, R48, R51, R53, R57

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,R7, R17, R18, R19, R20,

R21, R26, R29, R31,R33, R34, R35, R40,

R45, R51, R57

Efforts may be made toreduce the risk. Riskreduction measures

should beimplemented within adefined time period (12

months)

IV (Significant) Nil Nil Nil

Efforts shall be made toreduce the risk. Riskreduction measures

should beimplemented within adefined period of time

(6 months).

V(Unacceptable) Nil Nil Nil

Work should not bestarted until the risk

has been reduced.Considerable resources

shall be allocated toreduce the risk. If therisk hinders work in

progress, urgent action(within 7 working

days, min, and admincontrol) shall be taken.

(1) No risk factor falls under risk category I, risk level ‘trivial’. For category I, risk category IV(Significant) and category V (Unacceptable) for all ports, no action is required as the risk is undercontrol and manageable.

(2) The highest risk for Port A and Port B was Communication misunderstanding (R2). Meanwhilefor Port C, the highest risk rating was fatigue (R51). Findings for R2 (Communicationmisunderstanding) as the highest risk were similar to the findings by Ding and Tseng [31].Yang et al. [12] found that worker’s individual experience as a significant risk. However, in thisstudy, it came under acceptable risk. Sunaryo and Hamka [32] also highlighted human erroras a root cause of accidents. Azmi [33] found that health risks, especially ergonomics issues,were a concern among port operators. The study argued that the prevalence of low back pain issignificant among Malaysian port workers. Gravity risk factor relates to falls, slip and trip andsuspended loaded risk in the port industry. The risk was found to be most significant by Alyamiet al. [13], Alyami et al. [14] and Sunaryo and Hamka [32].

(3) As showed in Figure 3, for port A and port B, 42% of risk falls under risk category II and 58%under risk category III. Meanwhile, for Port C, 31% under risk category II and 69% under riskcategory III.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 12 of 20

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 12 of 19

Table 9. Risk Analysis and Estimation.

Risk Category Port A Port B Port C Action and Time Scale

I (Trivial) Nil Nil Nil No action required

II (Acceptable)

R8, R11, R12, R13,

R14, R15, R16,

R23, R24, R25,

R27, R28, R32,

R34, R36, R42,

R46, R47, R48,

R50, R52, R54,

R55, R56

R8, R10, R11, R12,

R13, R14, R16, R17,

R22, R23, R24, R25,

R27, R28, R29, R30,

R31, R32, R36, R37,

R38, R39, R42, R43,

R44, R46, R47, R49,

R50, R52, R54, R55,

R56

R8, R9, R10, R11,

R12, R13, R14, R15,

R16, R22, R23, R24,

R25, R27, R28, R30,

R32, R36, R37, R38,

R39, R41, R42, R43,

R44, R46, R47, R48,

R49, R50, R52, R53,

R54, R55, R56

No additional controls required.

Monitoring required ensuring

existing controls are maintained.

III (Moderate)

R1, R2, R3, R4,R5,

R6, R7, R9, R10,

R17, R18, R19,

R20, R21,R22, R26,

R29, R30, R31,

R33, R35, R37,

R38, R39, R40,

R41, R43, R44,

R45, R49, R51,

R53, R57

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,

R6, R7, R9, R15, R18,

R19, R20, R21, R26,

R33, R34, R35, R40,

R41, R45, R48, R51,

R53, R57

R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,

R6, R7, R17, R18,

R19, R20, R21, R26,

R29, R31, R33, R34,

R35, R40, R45, R51,

R57

Efforts may be made to reduce

the risk. Risk reduction measures

should be implemented within a

defined time period (12 months)

IV (Significant) Nil Nil Nil

Efforts shall be made to reduce

the risk. Risk reduction measures

should be implemented within a

defined period of time (6

months).

V(Unacceptable) Nil Nil Nil

Work should not be started until

the risk has been reduced.

Considerable resources shall be

allocated to reduce the risk. If the

risk hinders work in progress,

urgent action (within 7 working

days, min, and admin control)

shall be taken.

Figure 3. Risk Categories for Each Port.

5. Conclusions

The main contribution of this research is the development of risk management frameworks for

the handling and storage of cargo with enhanced risk assessment methods to improve the risk

management framework. The risk management framework was proposed with an introduction of

Port A

Port B

Port C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

42

58

0 0

0

42

58

0 0

0

39

61

0 0

Port A Port B Port C

Figure 3. Risk Categories for Each Port.

(4) Comparison between three ports, Port C can be said as the most risk port compared to Port A andB as Port C has highest number of risks under category III as showed in Figure 3.

As the main purpose of risk management is to ensure the risk raised from work activities are controllableand reduced to ALARP, risks that fall under risk category III are required to be subjected to additionalcontrol measures to ensure that the risk falls under risk categories I or II.

4.3. Risk Impact

Under United Nation Sustainability Goal Development Number Nine: “Industry, Innovation andInfrastructure”, it has been reported many workers around the world are exposed to undue risks intheir workplaces. Based on recent data from some 55 countries, a median of three deaths occurred per100,000 employees and a median of 889 non-fatal injuries occurred per 100,000 employees.

In this study, sustainability features for risk impact or risk severity are proposed. Based on theanalysis, it can be found that most of risks fall under level severity minor and major, as shown inAppendix C. This indicates that if any accident of minor severity happens due to that risk, it willimpact minor injuries or health effects including first aid cases and outpatient medical treatment or,affecting work performance due to restriction of activities, or require a few days to recover or, affectonly personnel involved in the activity. For environment impact, minor damage is when the repaircost is greater than RM 10,000 but less than RM 100,000. Contamination and damage are sufficient toattack the environment at a site. For reputation, it will cause some local public concern.

Meanwhile, if the severity of the risk is major, it may involve major injuries or health effects,affecting work performance for a longer term such as prolonged absence from work, hospitalization,or a disabling injury, but is recoverable or affects only personnel in the local department. For theenvironment, limited loss due to discharges of known toxicity may cause sufficient damage to attackthe environment within the port area, resulting in significant damage with repair costs greater thanRM 100,000 but less than RM 500,000. It has potential to exceed environmentally-related statutoryrequirements, i.e., the environmental quality act. Regional public concern will then grow and attractconsiderable local media and political attention. As for business or economic impact, it has potentialfor single violations of business-related regulations or statutory requirements, i.e., business licenses.

4.4. Risk Control

Table 9 below lists the risk controls proposed to reduce the risks which fall under Category III.This list is not exhaustive, and the port’s management shall be responsible for implementing anymanagement programs required to control and reduce the risks.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 13 of 20

5. Conclusions

The main contribution of this research is the development of risk management frameworks for thehandling and storage of cargo with enhanced risk assessment methods to improve the risk managementframework. The risk management framework was proposed with an introduction of risk frequencyinto risk rating calculations, risk criteria parameters for risk likelihood and risk severity, new riskmatrix dimensions and instruments to evaluate the existing control measure factors and new riskcategories with five levels which provide more details and a sustainable risk assessment method.This facilitates the application of risk management to solve occupational safety and health concernsin the area of port sustainability. The developed risk management framework with enhanced riskassessment techniques may solve the problem of integration of sustainability aspects in port safety andrisk management. This study has proposed the integration of sustainability aspects in the proposedrisk management frameworks by introducing the sustainability features in the “severity” phase wherethe consequence or impact of accident is not only focused on people but extended to the environment,assets and reputation which cover all aspects of economic sustainability.

Further implementation was carried out in major ports in Malaysia. In this study, the risk forhandling cargo at a multipurpose port was analyzed using the HIRARC method. The risks wereidentified by a combination of an intensive literature review and brainstorming with port experts.The risks identified were analyzed using risk matrix techniques where the risk likelihood, risk severityand risk frequency were determined. A questionnaire form was used to simplify and standardize thedata collection process and was distributed at a multipurpose port in Malaysia. Based on the results,additional risk controls were proposed for the risks that fall under category III based on the hierarchyof control implemented by the HIRARC 2008 guidelines. The findings may be summarized as follows:

(1) No risk factor falls under risk category I, risk level ‘trivial’. For category I, risk category IV(Significant) and category V (Unacceptable) for all ports, no action is required as the risk is undercontrol and manageable.

(2) The highest risk for Port A and Port B was communication misunderstanding (R2), while for PortC, the highest risk rating was fatigue (R51).

(3) As shown in Figure 3, for port A and port B, 42% of risks fall under risk category II and 58%under risk category III. Meanwhile, for Port C, 31% are under risk category II and 69% under riskcategory III.

(4) Comparing the three ports, Port C can be said to be most at risk compared to Port A and B as PortC has highest number of risks under category III.

The outcome of the research is crucial as a supplement to the current knowledge about riskassessment of such systems, risk assessment models and general guidelines for the improvement ofcurrent frameworks and procedures. Concurrently, this study shall benefit the participating ports inanalyzing their risk management systems. With the results of this research, the port managementcan implement countermeasures to increase worker safety awareness and safety culture in the port.Authorities such as the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), port authorities andmarine department will also benefit from this research for guideline formulation purposes. The researchinvestigated the risks of accidents for handling cargo at a multipurpose port in Malaysia. Furtherresearch could expand the scope of the study to another four major ports in Malaysia and covered thewhole port operations. As an example, research should be extended to financial risk by conductingcost benefit analyses to determine suitable risk strategies and mitigation options. This may improverisk management processes and decision making. In this study, the applicability and flexibility ofdeveloped frameworks were implemented in occupational safety and health risk, for the future theyshould also cover other types of risk such as environment risk, disaster risk and operational risk.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 14 of 20

6. Patents

This work has been patented under The Official Portal of Intellectual Property Corporation ofMalaysia, Patent Reference: LY2019005313 with title “Risk Management Framework for Handling andStorage of Cargo at Major Port in Malaysia”.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.A.K. and R.M.; Data curation, Z.A.K.; Formal analysis, Z.A.K.;Funding acquisition, R.M., N.O., A.A., S.H.A.-B. and F.M.-S.; Investigation, Z.A.K.; Methodology, R.M.; Projectadministration, R.M.; Resources, R.M.; Supervision, R.M., N.O. and A.A.; Validation, R.M., N.O. and A.A.;Visualization, Z.A.K., S.H.A.-B. and F.M.-S.; Writing-original draft, Z.A.K.; Writing-review & editing, Z.A.K.,R.M., N.O., A.A., M.N.M., S.H.A.-B. and F.M.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version ofthe manuscript.

Funding: The authors wish to express the utmost appreciation and gratitude to the Ministry of Higher Education,MyBrain15 MyPhD Ministry of Higher Education, UTM Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, andUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for all the support given in making the study a success. UTM VOTE No:Q.K130000.2540.19H15 and UTM VOTE No: Q.K130000.2656.16J42.

Conflicts of Interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection,analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 15 of 20

Table A1. Severity of Harm (Adapted from the Formal Safety Assessment with Enhancement).

Severity of Harm (s)

Level Risk Level People (P) Asset (A) Environment (E) Reputation (R)

1 Negligible

No or slight injury or health effectincluding first aid and medicaltreatment or, not affecting workperformance or, affecting onlypersonnel in the activity

Tolerable damage <RM10,000

No environmental damage or localenvironmental damage within a confinedarea

No or slight public awareness mayexist, and there is no public concern.

2 Minor

Minor injury or health effectincluding first aid cases & outpatientmedical treatment or, affecting workperformance such as restriction toactivities, or requiring a few days torecover or, affecting only personnelinvolved in the activity

Damage with repair costs> RM10,000,<RM100,000

Contamination. Damage sufficient toattack the environment at the site. Some local public concern.

3 Major

Major injury or health effect, oraffecting work performance for alonger term such as prolongedabsence from work, hospitalizationor disabling injury but recoverable oraffecting only personnel in a localdepartment

Significant damage withrepair costs > RM100,000,<RM500,000

Limited loss or discharges of knowntoxicity.Damage sufficient to attack theenvironment within the port limit area.Potential for or single infraction ofenvironmentally- related statutoryrequirements, i.e., EQA.

Regional public concern.Considerable local media andpolitical attention.Potential for or single violation ofbusiness-related regulations orstatutory requirements, i.e., businesslicense.

4 Critical

Single fatality or permanent totaldisability from an incident oroccupational illness (i.e., poison), oraffecting personnel in the factory

Heavy damage withrepair costs > RM500,000,<RM1,000,000

Severe environmental damage.Damage sufficient to attack theenvironment at a national level.Repeated infractions of environmentally-related statutes or prescribed limits.

National public concern.Adverse attention in national media.More than a single violation ofbusiness- related regulations orstatutory requirements, i.e., businesslicense

5 Catastrophe

Multiple fatalities from accidents oroccupational illness, or affectingpersonnel within and outside thefactory

Damage costs >RM1,000,000

Persistent severe environmental damage orsevere nuisance extending over a largearea affecting the international community.Constant high exceedance ofenvironmentally- related statutes orprescribed limits.

International public attention.Extensive public attention in thenational/international media.Potentially severe impact on access orrenewal of licenses.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 16 of 20

Appendix B

Table A2. Identified Risks.

Risk Factor Group Risk No Risk Descriptions

Man

R1 Operators’ mistakes and faults on operationsR2 Communication misunderstandingR3 Human carelessness and omissionsR4 Execution of the job safety rules and regulationsR5 Worker’s Individual workload and stressR6 Worker’s Individual disciplineR7 Do not following with normalized operating procedureR8 Worker’s Individual experience

Machines

R9 Automation of operationsR10 Machine/equipment conditionsR11 A series of routine and un routine maintenanceR12 Secure systemR13 Failure of lifting equipmentR14 Not selecting inherently safety protection of machines and equipmentR15 Requisite safety facilities and equipment tallied with standardsR16 Personnel safety equipment conditionsR17 Field safety equipment conditionsR18 Safety-related work environment setup

R19 Navigation aidsR20 PressureR21 VehiclesR22 Mobile and Fixed PlantR23 Powered EquipmentR24 Non-Powered Equipment

Management

R25 Communication between work groupsR26 Delegation of workR27 Fairness regarding salary and rewards/punishmentsR28 Carrying out the SOPsR29 On-the-job training and orientation educationR30 Not performing a safety auditing and safety inspectionR31 Operation safety protocolsR32 Implementation of safety education (awareness)R33 Training and assessment of operation skillsR34 Top manager support to strengthen the safety climateR35 Top manager support to provide sufficient cost for safety programsR36 Individual understanding of safety protocolsR37 Establishment of a culture that values safetyR38 Poor legal enforcementR39 Poor legal guidelines

Environment

R40 Structure DamageR41 System ComponentR42 WaterR43 UtilityR44 Structure CollapseR45 Natural environmentR46 Control room environmentR47 HousekeepingR48 Day vs NightR49 Adequate AccessR50 Air ConditioningR51 FatigueR52 Temperature ExtremesR53 Working aloneR54 LightingR55 Confined Spaces

TrafficR56 Traffic movementR57 Speed

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 17 of 20

Appendix C

Table A3. Risk Analysis and Estimation.

PORT A PORT B PORT C

F L S RR RC F L S RR RC F L S RR RC

R1 3.5 3.17 2.83 31.40 III 3.53 3.09 2.62 28.58 III 3.5 3.3 2.61 30.15 III

R2 3.85 3.44 3.4 45.03 III 3.88 3.47 3.44 46.31 III 3.68 3.61 3.27 43.44 III

R3 3.33 3.25 3.42 37.01 III 3.29 3.41 3.38 37.92 III 3.34 3.32 3.27 36.26 III

R4 3.63 3.58 2.81 36.52 III 3.53 3.68 2.65 34.42 III 3.55 3.7 2.89 37.96 III

R5 3.65 3.1 2.44 27.61 III 3.65 3.35 2.68 32.77 III 3.59 3.25 2.7 31.50 III

R6 3.77 3.44 2.46 31.90 III 3.56 3.32 2.44 28.84 III 3.68 3.43 2.39 30.17 III

R7 3.44 3.25 3.42 38.24 III 3.41 3.09 3.47 36.56 III 3.5 3 3.05 32.03 III

R8 3.27 2.81 2.58 23.71 II 3.41 2.82 2.44 23.46 II 3.55 2.66 2.25 21.25 II

R9 2.9 3.06 3.06 27.15 III 2.79 2.94 3 24.61 III 3.05 3.07 2.8 26.22 II

R10 3.27 3.1 2.71 27.47 III 2.91 3.15 2.65 24.29 II 2.98 2.95 2.82 24.79 II

R11 2.9 2.9 2.42 20.35 II 2.82 2.62 2.41 17.81 II 2.82 2.98 2.41 20.25 II

R12 3.17 3.15 2.06 20.57 II 2.94 3.18 2 18.70 II 3.27 3.16 1.91 19.74 II

R13 3.73 2.6 2.69 26.09 II 3.59 2.53 2.5 22.71 II 3.61 2.57 2.43 22.54 II

R14 3.25 2.21 2.46 17.67 II 3.06 2.32 2.53 17.96 II 3.07 2.2 2.41 16.28 II

R15 3.67 2.52 2.25 20.81 II 3.5 2.41 2.18 18.39 III 3.64 2.64 2.2 21.14 II

R16 3.46 2.17 2.38 17.87 II 3.32 2.26 2.41 18.08 II 3.73 2.25 2.25 18.88 II

R17 3.38 2.88 2.85 27.74 III 3.56 2.59 2.82 26.00 II 3.64 3.07 2.84 31.74 III

R18 3.31 3.15 3.19 33.26 III 3.18 3 2.88 27.48 III 3.5 3.59 3.05 38.32 III

R19 3.15 3.23 3.17 32.25 III 3 3.18 2.88 27.48 III 3.27 3.7 3.2 38.72 III

R20 3.15 3.29 2.9 30.05 III 2.91 3.24 2.76 26.02 III 3.14 3.64 2.8 32.00 III

R21 3.48 3.19 3.63 40.30 III 3.38 3.06 3.32 34.34 III 3.64 3.32 3.09 37.34 III

R22 3.15 3.13 2.98 29.38 III 2.97 2.94 2.88 25.15 II 2.75 3.02 2.91 24.17 II

R23 3.02 2.98 2.65 23.85 II 3 2.79 2.62 21.93 II 2.95 2.84 2.93 24.55 II

R24 3.13 2.85 2.67 23.82 II 2.88 2.82 2.65 21.52 II 2.89 2.84 2.82 23.15 II

R25 3.21 3.08 2.38 23.53 II 3 3 2.44 21.96 II 3.18 2.98 2.61 24.73 II

R26 3.1 3.02 2.92 27.34 III 2.82 2.82 2.76 21.95 III 3.09 2.98 3.16 29.10 III

R27 3.15 2.92 2.69 24.74 II 2.76 2.82 2.71 21.09 II 3.05 2.7 2.8 23.06 II

R28 2.92 2.81 2.9 23.80 II 2.88 2.71 2.82 22.01 II 2.98 2.7 2.8 22.53 II

R29 3.19 3.19 3.06 31.14 III 3 3.06 2.88 26.44 II 3.18 3.02 2.93 28.14 III

R30 3.21 3.02 3.04 29.47 III 3.06 2.76 3.24 27.36 II 2.95 2.86 3.14 26.49 II

R31 3.6 3.13 3.04 34.25 III 3.38 2.97 2.94 29.51 II 3.36 3.2 2.77 29.78 III

R32 3.21 2.75 3.04 26.84 II 2.91 2.56 3.06 22.80 II 2.7 2.86 3.16 24.40 II

R33 3.38 3.25 3.17 34.82 III 3.15 3.12 3.06 30.07 III 2.82 3.32 3.25 30.43 III

R34 3.17 2.6 3.13 25.80 II 2.88 2.47 2.94 20.91 III 3.34 2.89 2.82 27.22 III

R35 3.27 3.4 3.38 37.58 III 3.18 3.09 3.09 30.36 III 3.05 2.95 3.25 29.24 III

R36 3.15 2.73 2.98 25.63 II 3.06 2.76 2.82 23.82 II 3.11 2.8 2.95 25.69 II

R37 3.21 3.23 2.67 27.68 III 2.88 2.97 2.65 22.67 II 3.18 2.89 2.93 26.93 II

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 18 of 20

Table A4. Risk Analysis and Estimation.

PORT A PORT B PORT C

F L S RR RC F L S RR RC F L S RR RC

R38 3.13 2.79 3.15 27.51 III 2.94 2.76 2.76 22.40 II 3.05 2.66 2.89 23.45 II

R39 3.13 2.9 3.08 27.96 III 2.94 2.71 3 23.90 II 3.16 2.66 2.93 24.63 II

R40 3.35 3.25 3.04 33.10 III 3.32 3.18 2.88 30.41 III 3.25 3.41 3.07 34.02 III

R41 3.31 3.04 2.98 29.99 III 3.32 2.94 2.94 28.70 III 3.23 2.77 2.91 26.04 II

R42 3 2.85 2.27 19.41 II 2.76 2.91 2.18 17.51 II 2.82 2.8 2.34 18.48 II

R43 3.08 2.96 3.02 27.53 III 2.82 2.82 2.94 23.38 II 2.89 2.84 3.02 24.79 II

R44 3.1 3.04 2.96 27.90 III 3 2.94 2.88 25.40 II 2.86 2.91 2.98 24.80 II

R45 2.81 3.21 3.42 30.85 III 3.09 2.47 3.41 26.03 III 2.91 3.55 3.34 34.50 III

R46 2.98 2.98 2.46 21.85 II 2.82 2.88 2.38 19.33 II 2.77 2.75 2.66 20.26 II

R47 3.1 2.75 2.54 21.65 II 3.12 2.76 2.62 22.56 II 3.05 2.52 2.91 22.37 II

R48 3.15 2.77 2.13 18.59 II 3.24 2.59 2.24 18.80 III 3.18 2.39 2.14 16.26 II

R49 3.08 3.21 2.79 27.58 III 3.12 3 2.71 25.37 II 3.14 3 2.8 26.38 II

R50 3.21 2.92 2.73 25.59 II 3.47 2.82 2.56 25.05 II 3.32 2.89 2.45 23.51 II

R51 3.96 3.23 3.19 40.80 III 3.79 3.44 3.12 40.68 III 3.89 3.68 3.16 45.24 III

R52 3.02 2.71 2.46 20.13 II 3 2.62 2.41 18.94 II 3.07 2.93 2.3 20.69 II

R53 3.65 3.04 2.83 31.40 III 3.32 3 2.76 27.49 III 3.25 2.86 2.77 25.75 II

R54 3.13 2.88 2.46 22.18 II 2.94 2.76 2.44 19.80 II 2.95 2.8 2.48 20.48 II

R55 3.25 2.4 2.96 23.09 II 3.18 2.44 2.85 22.11 II 3.23 2.43 2.98 23.39 II

R56 3.15 2.88 2.92 26.49 II 2.94 2.88 2.88 24.39 II 2.95 2.86 2.66 22.44 II

R57 3.73 3.48 3.17 41.15 III 3.85 3.47 3.06 40.88 III 3.59 3.59 3.02 38.92 III

F-Frequency, L-Likelihood, S-Severity, RR-Risk Rating, RC-Risk Category

References

1. Lee, P.T.W.; Kwon, O.K.; Ruan, X. Sustainability Challenges in Maritime Transport and Logistics Industryand Its Way Ahead. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1331. [CrossRef]

2. Kang, D.; Kim, S. Conceptual Model Development of Sustainability Practices: The Case of Port Operationsfor Collaboration and Governance. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2333. [CrossRef]

3. Sislian, L.; Jaegler, A.; Cariou, P. A Literature Review on Port Sustainability and Ocean’s Carrier NetworkProblem. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2016, 19, 19–26. [CrossRef]

4. Zhao, B. Facts and lessons related to the explosion accident in Tianjin Port, China. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84,707–713. [CrossRef]

5. Fabiano, B.; Currò, F.; Reverberi, A.P.; Pastorino, R. Port safety and the container. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 9808.6. Marine Industrial Accident Statistics. Available online: https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/mias.html

(accessed on 15 November 2019).7. Port Industry Accident Statistics. published on 10 July 2018. Available online: https://www.

portskillsandsafety.co.uk/resources (accessed on 15 November 2019).8. Ng, C.A.; Berg, M.B.; Jude, D.J.; Janssen, J.; Charlebois, P.M.; Amaral, L.A.N.; Ray, K.A. Chemical amplification

in an invaded food web: Seasonality and ontogeny in a high-biomass, low-diversity ecosystem. Environ.Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 2186–2195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9. Shang, K.C.; Tseng, W.J. A Risk Analysis of Stevedoring Operations in Seaport Container Terminals. J. Mar.Sci. Technol. 2010, 18, 201–210.

10. Tseng, P.H.; Pilcher, N. Maintaining and researching port safety: A case study of the port of Kaohsiung. Eur.Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 34. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 19 of 20

11. Pallis, P.L. Port Risk Management in Container Terminals. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 4411–4421.[CrossRef]

12. Yang, Y.L.; Ding, J.F.; Chiu, C.; Shyu, W.S.; Tseng, W.J.; Chou, M.T. Core risk factors influencing safe handlingoperations for container terminals at Kaohsiung port. J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2016, 230, 444–453. [CrossRef]

13. Alyami, H.; Lee, P.T.-W.; Yang, Z.; Riahi, R.; Bonsall, S.; Wang, J. An advanced risk analysis approach forcontainer port safety evaluation. Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 634–650. [CrossRef]

14. Alyami, H.; Yang, Z.; Riahi, R.; Bonsall, S.; Wang, J. Advanced uncertainty modelling for container port riskanalysis. Accid. Anal. 2016, 123, 411–421. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. American Bureau of Shipping. Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Oil and GasIndustries. 2000. Available online: https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/97_riskassessapplmarineandoffshoreoandg/pub97_riskassesment.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2017).

16. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. Adoption: 1 November 1974; Entry into Force:25 May 1980; International Maritime Organization (IMO): London, UK, 1974.

17. Malaysa Marine Department. Merchant Shipping (Amendment and Extension) Act 2007; Percetakkan NasionalMalaysia Bhd: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2007.

18. International Maritime Organization. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx(accessed on 11 November 2019).

19. Jabatan Laut Malaysia. Malaysia Port by Law, Pelabuhan Klang, Malaysia. 1963. Available online:http://www.pka.gov.my/index.php/en/download/category/87-by-laws (accessed on 11 November 2019).

20. Department of Safety of Health Malaysia. Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act 514), Ministryof Human Resources, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya. 1994. Availableonline: http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/list-of-documents/acts/23-02-occupational-safety-and-health-act-1994-act-514/file (accessed on 11 November 2019).

21. Department of Safety of Health Malaysia. Factories and Machineries Act (Act 139), Ministryof Human Resources, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya. 1967. Availableonline: http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/list-of-documents/acts/26-03-factories-and-machinery-act-1967-revised-1974-acts-139/file (accessed on 11 November 2019).

22. Department of Safety of Health Malaysia. Guidelines for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and RiskControl (HIRARC), Ministry of Human Resources, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya.2008. Available online: http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/competent-person-form/occupational-health/

regulation/guidelines/hirarc-2/1846-01-guidelines-for-hazard-identification-risk-assessment-and-risk-control-hirarc-2008?path=guidelines/hirarc-2 (accessed on 11 November 2019).

23. International Maritime Organization. Formal Safety Assessment. 2002. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/SafetyTopics/Pages/FormalSafetyAssessment.aspx (accessed on 11 November 2018).

24. Vidmar, P.; Perkovic, M. Methodological approach for safety assessment of cruise ship in port. Saf. Sci. 2019,80, 189–200. [CrossRef]

25. Bouda, A.; Bachari, N.E.I.; Bahmed, L.; Boubenia, R. Design of a risk assessment methodology for theintroduction of invasive species from ship ballast waters: The case of Arzew port. Manag. Environ. Qual.2016, 27, 1–5. [CrossRef]

26. Wang, J.; Wang, P.; Zoua, X.W.; Li, P.P. Critical factors and paths influencing construction workers’ safety risktolerances. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 267–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Haapasaari, P.; Helle, I.; Lehikoinen, A.; Lappalainen, J.; Kuikka, S. A proactive approach for maritime safetypolicy making for the Gulf of Finland: Seeking best practices. Mar. Policy 2015, 60, 107–118. [CrossRef]

28. Dong, Y.; Frangopol, D.M. Probabilistic ship collision risk and sustainability assessment considering riskattitudes. Struct. Saf. 2015, 53, 75–84. [CrossRef]

29. Kadir, Z.A. Risk Management Framework of Handling and Storage of Cargo at Ports in Malaysia. Master’sThesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2019.

30. Mokhtari, K.; Ren, J.; Roberts, C.; Wang, J. Decision support framework for risk management on seaports andterminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 5087–5103.[CrossRef]

31. United Nation Sustainability Goal Development Number Nine. Industry Innovation and Infrastructure.Available online: https://academicimpact.un.org/content/industry-innovation-and-infrastructure (accessedon 11 November 2019).

Sustainability 2020, 12, 516 20 of 20

32. Sunaryo, J.; Hamka, M. Safety Risks Assessment on Container Terminal Using Hazard Identification andRisk Assessment and Fault Tree Analysis Methods. Procedia Eng. 2017, 194, 307–314. [CrossRef]

33. Azmi, M. Ergonomics of Quay Crane Workstation; (Thesis); Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM): Skudai, JohorBahru, Malaysia, 2017.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).